 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / July 2006bridge
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594202364010/ Rutger  Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ > Rutger Breathtakingly bland. >> Rutger > >Breathtakingly bland. Some nice macro work on his Flickr site, though. >> Rutger > > Breathtakingly bland. Since English is not my native tongue, could you please explain what you mean by 'bland'? Rutger Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ > "Helen" <gormless@gormless.co.uk> schreef in bericht >> Breathtakingly bland. > > Since English is not my native tongue, could you please explain what you > mean by 'bland'? > > Rutger This says it better than I can: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bland - the first meaning there. >> "Helen" <gormless@gormless.co.uk> schreef in bericht > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This says it better than I can: > http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bland - the first meaning there. Do you care to tell why? Just a simple remark doesn't say much. Rutger Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ Rutger <nospam@please.com> observed >>> "Helen" <gormless@gormless.co.uk> schreef in bericht >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >Do you care to tell why? Just a simple remark doesn't say much. I don't disagree with the term 'bland', they are *OK*, but I wouldn't have drawn them to these groups' attention, because apart from the nice bridge shape there is little else. There is a uniformity of tone, with overexposure outside the bridge itself, and nothing *dramatic* to focus or grab attention. And I don't like water that isn't level[1] (in a couple of them) it worries me!! Mike [1] For a joke about myself see... http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman/120721360/ [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< >>> "Helen" <gormless@gormless.co.uk> schreef in bericht >>>> Breathtakingly bland. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rutger Every photo is overexposed for starters and there is lens flare in most of them. The horizons are very crooked unless you were trying to make it look like something special which it isn't. The graffiti takes away from the structure of the bridge because you are forced to look at it rather than the bridge, you should have used airbrushing or cloning top get rid of it. Overall those pictures are shithouse. >Every photo is overexposed for starters and there is lens flare in most >of them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >airbrushing or cloning top get rid of it. >Overall those pictures are shithouse. Where can we see your pictures? They must be really good, given the extremely derogatory comments you have made about Rutger's efforts. So what is the URL of your online album? >> Every photo is overexposed for starters and there is lens flare in most >> of them. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So what is the URL of your online album? Which part of my comments were derogatory? I outlined where they needed improvement since he asked because at present they ARE shithouse. That doesn't make it derogatory just descriptive. In australia, "shithouse" isn't a derogatory term just a description that says this isn't good enough. If you take offence to the word sh.t then get a life. Message-ID: <44bf45c8_2@x-privat.org> from Smee R11S contained the following: >Which part of my comments were derogatory? >I outlined where they needed improvement since he asked because at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that says this isn't good enough. >If you take offence to the word sh.t then get a life. Your photographs are sh.t, you dingo-humping bastard. Offensive? Well no it wouldn't be offensive with a cocky grin over a beer but in a newsgroup with fewer modes of communication offence can easily be taken. I really to think you could try to take that on board SignatureGeoff Berrow (put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/ >Which part of my comments were derogatory? >I outlined where they needed improvement since he asked because at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that says this isn't good enough. >If you take offence to the word sh.t then get a life. You described Rutger's photos as "shithouse" which certainly isn't a compliment. I don't take any offence at the word "sh.t" but I would really like to see how much better your photos are than Rutger's. I am always keen to learn from experts like you. So let us see your photos so we can see how it should be done. What is the URL of your web site? >> Which part of my comments were derogatory? >> I outlined where they needed improvement since he asked because at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So let us see your photos so we can see how it should be done. What > is the URL of your web site? He posted to an Australian newsgroup so he got an Australian reply. Crossposting will get you into trouble. If you don't like it then simple, don't crosspost if you take offence. As for my website I don't have one per se but you can see some samples here. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/surreal2.jpg http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/Moonlightoverwater/crane.jpg http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/Expression.jpg http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/citysouth http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/hutgothicglow.jpg There's a shitload of good and bad in there Feel free to critique all you want. Even pick out the "shithouse" ones. >He posted to an Australian newsgroup so he got an Australian reply. >Crossposting will get you into trouble. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Feel free to critique all you want. >Even pick out the "shithouse" ones. There's some good stuff on that site. But there's some good stuff on Rutger's site too, including some excellent macro shots. Have you seen any of them? >> He posted to an Australian newsgroup so he got an Australian reply. >> Crossposting will get you into trouble. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Rutger's site too, including some excellent macro shots. Have you > seen any of them? I doubt he would , normal teachers approch to subject, install blinkers and deny all but your opinion ( worse when in the wrong like now( and he is a self-opinionated tossa.)) >>> He posted to an Australian newsgroup so he got an Australian reply. >>> Crossposting will get you into trouble. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and deny all but your opinion ( worse when in the wrong like now( and he > is a self-opinionated tossa.)) Translation anyone? Too much plonk again atec? Where are YOUR photos. >>>> He posted to an Australian newsgroup so he got an Australian reply. >>>> Crossposting will get you into trouble. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Too much plonk again atec? > Where are YOUR photos. Basically Greek boy I repeat "your a biatch" and my photos are not good which is why I critisize you and not your photography . >>>>> He posted to an Australian newsgroup so he got an Australian reply. >>>>> Crossposting will get you into trouble. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Basically Greek boy I repeat "your a biatch" and my photos are not good > which is why I critisize you and not your photography . LOL I'll pay that one. >> He posted to an Australian newsgroup so he got an Australian reply. >> Crossposting will get you into trouble. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Rutger's site too, including some excellent macro shots. Have you > seen any of them? I've seen his other stuff and they are quite good but I'm no macro fan. I was just commenting on his bridge photos and they just are no good and offered ways he could improve them. He attempted that but they are still way overexposed. You'll find examples of my stuff that are no good too. He asked for comments and didn't like what he got as answers well tough! >>> Which part of my comments were derogatory? >>> I outlined where they needed improvement since he asked because at [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Feel free to critique all you want. > Even pick out the "shithouse" ones. Perfect exaples of pictures i used to make but got bored with. Everyone makes them and can make them. Rutger Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ >>>> Which part of my comments were derogatory? >>>> I outlined where they needed improvement since he asked because at [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Rutger Pity you can't take a decent photo of a bridge with lighting and composition. Just accept you make a cockup of it and move on. >> Perfect exaples of pictures i used to make but got bored with. >> Everyone makes them and can make them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Pity you can't take a decent photo of a bridge with lighting and > composition. Can you judge that by these 5 pics? > Just accept you make a cockup of it and move on. I will. At least my pictures aren't decent. Decent pictures are boring, just as about 80% of the pictures you have on your webspace. Rutger Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ >>> Perfect exaples of pictures i used to make but got bored with. >>> Everyone makes them and can make them. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rutger That webspace is just my dumping ground where I tests lenses if you haven't cottoned on. Most of my shots are archived because I don't bother posting to newsgroups begging for praise like you and some french dude with his crap "picture of the week" posts. If you noticed you poor son of a bitch I only commented on those 5 pictures and not your 500 odd shots in flickr. I haven't commented on your website but if you want me to I will because apart from some great abstracts and some very good architecture the rest look like snapshots Yes your pictures aren't decent you are correct. Happy now? If you crosspost among several usenet groups and ask for comments then don't like what you read I have a suggestion to you. Don't ask for comments. If you want to come into a newsgroup and ask for praise only then you are sadly deluded. I hope you learn that asking for comments on what are bland, poorly exposed and poorly composed pictures like your bridge series and accepting criticism is something you can take out of this, if not then don't post them across so many newsgroups and just stick to one where your work may be appreciated. > That webspace is just my dumping ground where I tests lenses if you > haven't cottoned on. Oops. Someone has to do a lot of explainig... > Most of my shots are archived because I don't bother posting to newsgroups > begging for praise like you and some french dude with his crap "picture of > the week" posts. > If you noticed you poor son of a bitch ??? > I only commented on those 5 pictures and not your 500 odd shots in flickr. > I haven't commented on your website but if you want me to I will because > apart from some great abstracts and some very good architecture the rest > look like snapshots > Yes your pictures aren't decent you are correct. > Happy now? Allways, thank you. > If you crosspost among several usenet groups and ask for comments then > don't like what you read I have a suggestion to you. > Don't ask for comments. I didn't ask. > If you want to come into a newsgroup and ask for praise only then you are > sadly deluded. Thx, your're so helpful. > I hope you learn that asking for comments on what are bland, poorly > exposed and poorly composed pictures like your bridge series and accepting > criticism is something you can take out of this, if not then don't post > them across so many newsgroups and just stick to one where your work may > be appreciated. As you can see, i did take the criticism, thanks again. I don not wish otherwise than to improve my picturetaking. Rutger Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ > >> "Helen" <gormless@gormless.co.uk> schreef in bericht > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Do you care to tell why? Just a simple remark doesn't say much. Were you aiming at a shape or abstract? Try cropping a bit more or rotating the image or even apply a filter. > > Since English is not my native tongue, could you please explain what you > > mean by 'bland'? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This says it better than I can: > http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bland - the first meaning there. While you're at it you might wanna look up "lens flare." > >> Rutger > > > > Breathtakingly bland. > > Since English is not my native tongue, could you please explain what you > mean by 'bland'? "Bland" is generally a term to describe food that is flavorless. Otherwise it means something that is uninteresting or plain. I agree that it's a rather ordinary looking bridge, but it was probably a worthwhile exercise. I suppose a "less bland" result would be the Golden Gate or Sundial Bridge. If you come out to San Francisco, you can get a similar angle from Fort Point, which is located directly under the Golden Gate Bridge. Here's the Sundial Bridge. <http://www.turtlebay.org/sundial/sundial03.shtml> Message-ID: <dt6dne3IFuKQ2CDZRVnysQ@pipex.net> from Helen contained the following: >> Rutger > >Breathtakingly bland. I like the shapes and colour in IMG_7397. IMG_7398 is good but I would probably have done a long vertical crop to get rid of most of the graffiti SignatureGeoff Berrow (put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/ >> Rutger > > Breathtakingly bland. I think an ultra wide would have made it more interesting and I would have chosen another time of day. Maybe a sunset. We are lucky in Perth. we have almost the same style of bridge with the lights of Perth making a perfect backdrop. P.S.Don't get me started about the aperture shadows. Get a lens hood son. >I think an ultra wide would have made it more interesting and I would >have chosen another time of day. Maybe a sunset. We are lucky in Perth. >we have almost the same style of bridge with the lights of Perth making >a perfect backdrop. I knew there had to be SOME compensations for living in Perth..... >> I think an ultra wide would have made it more interesting and I would >> have chosen another time of day. Maybe a sunset. We are lucky in Perth. >> we have almost the same style of bridge with the lights of Perth making >> a perfect backdrop. > > I knew there had to be SOME compensations for living in Perth..... We may have suicide bombers but they die of boredom before they push the button. :) >> Rutger > > Breathtakingly bland. Is my Picture also Bland? Please see http://djmp.co.uk/slr%201/bridge.htm DAVE Get your horizon line horizontal. 1st rule On 7/18/06 3:07 PM, in article abec5$44bd3f6d$57d48302$3113@news.versatel.net, "Rutger" <nospam@please.com> wrote: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594202364010/ > > Rutger Made some (minor) corrections. Hope this is more to your liking: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594205042234/ Rutger |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.